cbe a copenhagen+summit

8/8/2019 Cbe a Copenhagen+Summit

1/29

Prepared by:-

Aastha Yadav(01)

Abhirup Mukherjee(02)

Abhishek Dhir Deb(03)

Aditya Mohan(04)


2/29

WHAT IS KYOTO

PROTOCOL???

It is an international agreement between 182

Parties of the United Nations Framework

Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).

It was agreed upon at the third Conference of

the Parties (COP3) in December 1997 in Kyoto,

Japan.

It entered into force on February 16th 2005.Its first commitment period ends in 2012.


3/29

The signing countries agreed to reduce theirgreenhouse gas emissions by at least 5%compared to the 1990 level.

Several of the world's largest CO2 emitters

have not committed themselves to fixedtargets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

The Kyoto Protocol commits the

industrialized countries to stabilize or evenreduce GHG emissions.


4/29

THE FLEXIBILITY MECHANISM

Emissions trading: The countries may trade the quotas they have been

allocated.

Joint Implementation (JI): A developed country can receive "emissions reduction units"

when it helps to finance emission reducing projects inanother developed country.

Clean Development Mechanism (CDM): Developed countries may finance their emission reduction

or removal projects in developing countries and receivecredits for doing so.


5/29

Recognizing that developed countries are

principally responsible for the current high

levels of GHG emissions in the atmosphere as

a result of more than 150 years of industrial

activity, the Protocol places a heavier burden

on developed nations under the principle of

common but differentiated responsibilities


6/29

The developed nations want to continue basicallybusiness as usual so they are expected topurchase indulgences to give some small amount

of money to developing countries. They do that inthe form of offsets and adaptation funds.

Developing countries fear that rich nations willensure that a new treaty will not place strict and

legally binding commitments on the developedcountries to cut their emissions, unlike the Kyotoprotocol.


7/29

COP15- THE SUMMIT

182 countries participated in the 11 day longsummit

A total of 15000 delegates were present in

Copenhagen for the summit

1200 limousines, 140 private planes werethere during the summit

It produced 41000 tonnes of CO2 equivalent Carbon Dating took place


8/29

WHAT ARE THE POOR

COUNTRIES OFFERED $100bn- long term finance for emissions reductions and adaptation in poorcountries

$30bn in short term emergency adaptation for the most vulnerablecountries

$100bn is a goal not a commitment

$100bn is only half the money needed.

There are no assurances that the $100bn will be additional to existingaid commitments. This means money could be diverted from educationand health care in poor countries to pay for flood defences.

The $100bn may not be public money. Unless climate cash comes frompublic sources, there are no guarantees that it will reach the right

people, in the right places, at right time.


9/29

ROAD TO COPENHAGEN

Nearly four decades after the first world climate meet ,the global community

continues to bicker:

JUNE 1972: Stockholm conference to create common outlook for preserving &enhancing environment.

JANUARY 1979: First World Climate Conference, Geneva ,to assess climate change

impact on impact

AUGUST 1988: UN climate panel IPCC(Intergovernmental Panel on Climate

Change) established to study the risks of human induced climate change

JUNE 1992: Opening the United Nations Framework Convention on climate

Change(UNFCC) for ratification.

DECEMBER 1997: third UNFCC meet at Kyoto. Adoption of 5% reduction in GHG by

certain developed countries 2012 and agreement on emission trading

NOVEMBER 1998:The US rejects Kyoto Protocol


10/29

CONTD..

FEBRUARY 2005: Kyoto Protocol comes into effect ,ratified by 141 countries and

35 industrialized countries committing to reduce emission by 2012.

DE

CE

MBER

2007: Bali CoP to launch formal negotiations to conclude post-Kyotoaction in Copenhagen in 2009

AUGUST 2009: UN climate change talks in Bangkok. Australia suggests an

alternate deal to include US.

NOVEMBER 2009: talks in Barcelona end in stalemate as the US fails to commiton any emission cuts


11/29


12/29

UNITED STATES

Rejected and single handedly sunk the Kyoto Protocol

Wants India and China to also commit to emission cuts

Will have an emission cap and trade regime

Plans to impose trade barriers against countries without acap and trade system

Willing to cut emission by only 17% by 2020 from 2005level

ANNUAL CARBON EMISSIONS:5,854mt

(20.3% of global total)


13/29

INDIA

Maintains the Kyoto protocol principle of common butdifferentiated responsibility.

Will undertake unilateral climate change mitigation

steps but will not make legally binding commitments Will open only externally funded mitigation projects to

international verification and scrutiny

ANNUAL CARBON EMMISIONS:1,370mt



14/29

CHINA

Like India backs Kyoto Protocol principle of the historicpolluters` responsibility to cut emissions

Plans to reduce emission intensity of its GDP growth

by 45-50% through unilateral and externally fundedmeasures

ANNUAL CARBON EMISSIONS:

6,083mt



15/29

EUROPEAN UNION

Pushing hard for an agreement at Copenhagen

Favors a cap and trade regime and supports the Kyoto protocol

Will raise its emission cuts to 30% from already offered if US inparticular also commits a similar cut

Says poorer nations will need 100billion euro a year by 2020 totackle global warming but vague on any commitment


3,971mt



16/29

BRAZIL

Commits to roll back emissions to 1990 level bycutting the projected 2020 emissions by 36%.

Breaks rank with G-77 by commiting a target to pit

pressure on the US


350mt



17/29

AFRICAN UNION

Wants a minimum compensation of$100bn a year

from the developed countries

Insists the rich countries cut emissions by 40% by

2020

Opposed to any new deal replacing the Kyoto Protocolthat may water down developed countries`

commitments to take deep emission cuts and to

finance poor countries` efforts for climate change

adaptation and mitigation


18/29


19/29

WHATWENTWRONG

INTEREST OF ISLAND NATIONS

The tiny Pacific island nation Tuvalu disrupted negotiations by demanding

acceptable increase in Earth`s temperature from pre industrial levels be

1.5 degree and not 2 degree

It found backers in Trinidad & Tobago and Grnada and many Africancountries

Rift between AOSIS and G-77

US POLITICAL SYSTEM

The president is not able to pledge anything that Congress will not support,

and his inability to step up the US offer in Copenhagen was probably the

single biggest impediment to other parties improving theirs.


20/29

WHATWENTWRONG??KEY GOVTS. DO NOT WANT A GLOBAL DEAL

big players now prefer - an informal setting, where each country says what it isprepared to do - where nothing is negotiated and nothing is legally binding.

EU POLITICS

Without EU`s support the accord would now be simply an informal agreementbetween a handful of countries - symbolising the failure of the summit to agreeanything close to the EU's minimum requirements

EXTREMEREPRESSION AGAINST CIVIL SOCIETY As the Summit entered its final critical days the vast majority of observers were

barred from the conference centre. While the security challenges of such ameeting are huge, it is inexcusable that the forward planning did not takeaccount of needing civil society and other observers to be present fortransparency and legitimacy

the summit organizers decided to ban most NGOs from participating in theevent, NGOs that represented those very people who are affected mostprofoundly by climate change

Even then nations of the global south, mostly the poor developingnations,seem to be excluded from the decision making


21/29

HOPENHAGEN TO

NOPENHAGEN Decisions went down to the wire as negotiations continued into the early

hours of the morning. An agreement was forged in a small number ofclosed bilateral sessions before being thrust onto poor countries underconditions of tiredness and stress

The Copenhagen Accord - brokered at the last minute by Barack Obama, the

US president, with China, India, Brazil and South Africa - did not receiveuniversal support from the countries participating in the climate summit.

There was a very high expectation from the West that a deal would bepushed through. But what's happened is a real wake-up call to howgeopolitics has changed.

At least start has been madehistoric but incomplete

The Copenhagen Accord did have victories, including the first significantclimate fund for poor nations. The accord promises to deliver $30bn of aidover the next three years and to raise $100mn in yearly climate financing forpoor countries by 2020.


22/29

THEMES OF THOUGHT LEADERSHIP

SERIES TacklingEmissions Growth: The Role of Markets and Government Regulation

Achieving low emissions energy systems in rapidly developing economies

Drawing down CO2 from the atmosphere

The role of city planning and buildings in tackling emissions growth

Achieving the capital investment required to tackle climate change

The CEO's survival guide to climate change

Adapting to the impacts of climate change

Role ofInformation and Communications Technology in Addressing ClimateChange

Beyond a global agreement: Scenarios from the future


23/29

PERSONAL CARBON

ALLOWANCE(PCA)

The idea behind PCA is that each person will

receive the same annual carbon allowance orration for the primary energy they consume


24/29

THEWAY AHEAD.. The next opportunity for a treaty will be the 2010 UN climate conference in

Mexico City. That may be an opportunity to solidify what did not happen in

Copenhagen, though many of the same challenges will face leaders there.

The initial financial commitments should be seen as incremental steps to

the actual figures deemed sufficient by the poorer nations

The lack of trust is even deeper than it was before Copenhagen.Restoringtrust and re-building momentum is a major challenge over the coming

months.

Now its up to cold economics to save the world-

India, China or any other developing nations would be willing to reduce their

usage of coal and oil more so to save to augment its bottom line than to save

the earth

So these countries would invest in cleaner technologies to grow their

economies irrespective of a global treaty


25/29

THEWAY AHEAD..

International treaties on climate control ending up in a lock jam has

induced countries to enter into bilateral for co operation in climate change

mitigation

These are particularly in the areas of development and sharing of cleanertechnologies

Examples include- India with China ; EU with Brazil; China with US

Private investment in cleaner technologies which is a $3trillion dollar baby


26/29

CONCLUSION

In short it would be safer to bet on the

nations` economic self interests and the

private profit motive to save the earth than

on any amount of international altruism


27/29


28/29


29/29

cbe a copenhagen+summit

Documents